1. The case originated in an application (no.
46347/99) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under
Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Cypriot national, Mrs
Myra Xenides-Arestis (“the applicant”), on 4 November 1998.

2. In a judgment delivered on 22 December 2005
(“the principal judgment”), the Court dismissed the objection on
the applicant's victim status and found continuing violations of Article
8 of the Convention by reason of the complete denial of the applicant's
right to respect for her home and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by
virtue of the fact that the applicant was denied access to and control,
use and enjoyment of her property and any compensation for the interference
with her property rights. Furthermore, it found that it was not necessary
to carry out a separate examination of the applicant's complaint under
Article 14 in conjunction with the above provisions (Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, no. 46347/99, §§ 22, 32 and 36
and points 1-4 of the operative provisions).

3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant
sought just satisfaction of 587,399 Cyprus pounds (CYP) by way of pecuniary
damage concerning the period between 28 January 1987, the date of the
acceptance by Turkey of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, and
the end of 2005. Two valuation reports, setting out the basis for the
calculation of the applicant's loss, were appended to the applicant's
observations. Furthermore, the applicant claimed CYP 160,000 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage and CYP 131,867.97 for costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.

4. Since the question of the application of Article
41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it. However, it awarded
the applicant 65,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.

5. The Court had examined the implementation of the preceding
compensation law, the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties
Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”
(“Law no. 49/2003”)3,
in the present case, at the admissibility stage and had ruled that the
remedy proposed under the above law did not satisfy the requirements
under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in that it could not be regarded
as an “effective” or “adequate” means for redressing the applicant's
complaints (see Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46347/99, decision of
14 March 2005, § 50).

6. The Court, in the principal judgment, further held that “the
respondent State must introduce a remedy which secures genuinely effective
redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgment
in relation to the present applicant as well as in respect of all similar
applications pending before it, in accordance with the principles for
the protection of the rights laid down in Article 8 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and in line with its admissibility decision
of 14 March 2005. Such a remedy should be available within three months
from the date on which the present judgment is delivered and redress
should be afforded three months thereafter” (§ 40). Furthermore,
the parties were invited to submit, within three months, from the date
on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, their written observations on the issue of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage and, in particular, to notify the Court of
any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 50, and point 6 of the operative
provisions). Pending the implementation of the relevant general measures
by the Government, the Court adjourned its consideration of all applications
deriving from the same general cause (ibid., § 50).

7. The Government filed observations on 21 March
2006 and, subsequently, the applicant and the Government each filed
observations on 21 June 2006. The applicant submitted updated claims
in respect of just satisfaction.

8. The Government of Cyprus, who had made use
of their right to intervene under Article 36 of the Convention, submitted
observations on 16 August 2006.

9. The Government filed additional observations
on 10 and 11 October 2006.

10. Subsequent to the adoption of the principal
judgment in the instant case, the authorities of the “Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) enacted the new compensation law,
the “Law for the Compensation, Exchange and Restitution of Immovable
Properties” (“Law no. 67/2005”) which entered into force on 22 December
2005 and the “By-Law made under Sections 8 (2) (A) and 22 of the Law for
the Compensation, Exchange and Restitution of Immovable Properties which
are within the scope of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of Article
159 of the Constitution” (“Law no. 67/2005”) which entered into
force on 20 March 2006.

11. The “Immovable Property Commission” (hereinafter
“the Commission”), which was established under “Law no. 67/2005”
for the purpose of examining applications made in respect of properties
within the scope of the aforementioned law, is composed of five to seven
members, two of whom are foreign members, Mr Hans-Christian Krüger4
and Mr Daniel Tarschys5,
and has the competence to decide on the restitution, exchange of properties
or payment of compensation. A right of appeal lies to the “TRNC”
High Administrative Court.

12. The Government submitted that a total of sixty
applications had been lodged with the Commission and that the examination
of nine of these had already been concluded. In six of these applications
the applicants received a payment by way of compensation and, in the
remaining applications, the Commission decided on the restitution of
the properties in question.

THE LAW

13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation
of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law
of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation
to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction
to the injured party.”

A. Pecuniary damage

1. The parties' submissions

(a) The applicant

14. The applicant emphasised at the outset that
she did not claim compensation for any purported expropriation of her
property since she was still the legal owner of her property and no
issue of expropriation arose. Her claim was thus confined to the loss
of use of the land and the consequent lost opportunity to lease or rent
it. Relying on two valuation reports assessing the value of her property
and the return that could be expected from it, she claimed CYP 716,101
by way of pecuniary damage concerning the period between 28 January
1987, the date of the acceptance by Turkey of the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Court, and the end of 2006.

15. The method employed in the valuation reports
was the comparison method of valuation in conjunction with the cost-of-construction
method for the first property and the comparison method of valuation
for the second: the estimation of the annual rent value was derived
as a percentage of the capital value of the property. The market price
of the property was calculated as it had stood in 1974 and increased
by approximately 5.5% per year with regard to the first property and
10% per year with regard to the second, in order to calculate the value
that the property would have had if Famagusta had not been occupied
by the Turkish army. The market value of the applicant's share in the
first property was estimated as being CYP 12,675 on 1 August 1974 and
in the second property as CYP 25,000. It was emphasised that the area
of Famagusta was, among other things, one of the most popular tourist
resorts and could reasonably be expected to have enjoyed increases in
rent higher than the average of the unoccupied areas had the invasion
not taken place.

16. The total sum claimed by way of pecuniary
damage represented the aggregate amount of ground rent that could have
been collected from 22 January 1987 until 31 December 2006, calculated
as 5% for the first property and 6% for the second of the estimated
market value of the properties for each of the years in question, plus
interest from the date on which such rent was due until the date of
payment. For that period, therefore, the sum with regard to the first
property amounted to CYP 229,250 (loss of rent for her home) and for
the second CYP 486,851 (loss of use of her land). Both amounts claimed
included interest on the rent at a rate of 8% from 1987 up to the end
of 2000 and 6% from 2001 until the end of 2006. The examination of the
trends in rent increases was made on the basis of the Consumer Price
Index 1960-2005 in respect of Rents and Housing, issued by the Department
of Statistics and Research of the Government of Cyprus.

17. In her observations the applicant made certain
proposals to the Court for the assessment of just satisfaction.

18. With regard to the new remedy proposed by
the Turkish Government, the applicant firstly emphasised that the question
of domestic remedies was a question of admissibility that the Court
had already ruled on in its admissibility decision of 14 March 2004.
In any event, the applicant, referring to the Court's judgment in the
case of Scordino
v. Italy (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-...) argued
that it was inappropriate to require an individual who had obtained
judgment against the State at the end of legal proceedings to then bring
enforcement proceedings to obtain just satisfaction. Therefore, in the
applicant's opinion, any examination of the purported remedy which was
introduced after the Court had found violations of the Convention fell
outside the scope of the application.

19. The applicant further challenged the legal
validity of “Law no. 67/2005” referring to the findings of the Court
in its judgments in the cases of Loizidou v. Turkey (judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, §§ 44, 46-47),
and Cyprus
v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 186, ECHR 2001-IV) with regard
to Article 159 of the “TRNC” Constitution. The applicant stressed
that, as decided by the Court in its above judgments, displaced Greek-Cypriots
who owned property in northern Cyprus, such as the applicant, could
not be deemed to have lost title to their property as a result of that
provision for the purposes of Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of
Protocol No. 1 and remained legal owners of the land. However, under
the mechanism set up by the new Law compensation was paid as if lawful
expropriation had occurred.

20. In any event, the applicant contested the
adequacy and effectiveness of the new remedy proposed by the respondent
Government and raised a number of points in this respect. She argued
that the respondent Government had failed to restore access, use and
enjoyment to her of her home and property. The provisions of the Law
fell short of the respondent Government's obligations to cease its wrongdoing
by putting an end to the violations found by restoring displaced persons'
peaceful enjoyment of their homes and properties and to offer the victims
full reparation for its wrongdoing so as to wipe out the consequences
of its wrongful conduct.

21. The applicant also emphasised that the Law
was vague and plagued with substantive and procedural deficiencies and
imposed an inappropriate and unfair standard of proof on applicants.
In this connection, she noted that no provision was made by the new
Law or other “TRNC legislation” for any remedies which could be
resorted to by individuals concerned, such as the applicant, to contest
the exclusion from their properties and home; the legality of the interference
with the applicant's property and home was unassailable before the “TRNC”
authorities, including the “TRNC” courts and the Commission. Although
in cases, such as hers, there were pre-existing findings of violations
of Convention rights by the Court, in the vast majority of applications
pending before the Court, no judgment on the merits had been yet delivered.

22. Furthermore, although the new Law purported
to provide restitutio in integrum to property owners, in reality it would
fail to do so in the vast majority of cases due to the many limitations
imposed. The applicant provided detailed submissions in this respect.
She emphasised, inter alia, the non-mandatory nature of the restitution even
when an immovable property was categorised as “returnable” and the
risks inherent in a claim for restitution of immovable property which
was categorised as “non-returnable”. She also pointed out that claims
were determined with reference to political questions, in particular
to “the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus Problem” despite
the fact that the Law was supposed to provide a legal remedy and regardless
of the Court's jurisprudence on this matter. Furthermore, the fenced
up area of Famagusta (Varosha), where the applicant's home and property
were located, was an area under the direct control of the Turkish army
to which no one was allowed access apart from military personnel. Consequently,
as a military area, it fell within one of the excluded categories of
properties in the Law. The applicant thus argued that the purported
remedy was not applicable to her case since she was not eligible to
apply. In addition, she noted that a recent judgment of the “TRNC
Famagusta District Court” declared that the area of Famagusta belonged
to the muslim religious trust (the Evkaf) and not to displaced Greek-Cypriot
persons: (1) Vaqf organisation and the Department for Religious Affairs, as the
Trusted Advisor and Representative of the Abdullah Pasha Vaqf, Nicosia
(2) Vaqf
organisation and the Department for Religious Affairs, Nicosia v. the
Attorney-General of theTRNC, Nicosia, dated 27 December 2005.

23. As regards the issue of property exchange,
the applicant considered that the “TRNC” authorities did not have
the lawful authority to compromise Turkish Cypriots' rights by purporting
to exchange their properties in southern Cyprus. Finally, the applicant
maintained that no provision was made in the Law in respect of default
interest or costs and expenses incurred in the process of seeking a
remedy before the Commission and/or the “TRNC courts”.

24. Finally, the applicant considered that in
view, inter
alia, of the prevailing legal and political context, the practical
effectiveness and accessibility of the proposed remedy and the delay
in the processing of such cases before the Court, Greek Cypriots, including
the applicant, could not be required to apply to the Commission.

(b) The Government

25. The Government submitted that the new mechanism
which had been set up via “Law no. 67/2005”, subsequent to and on
the basis of the principal judgment, constituted an effective domestic
remedy in line with that judgment and was capable of providing sufficient
redress to the present applicant and other persons who had similar applications
pending before the Court. They explained that under the new Law it was
open to the applicant to lodge an application with the Commission in
order to claim compensation for the damage she had allegedly sustained.
In this regard, they noted that under the Law persons who had applied
to the Court before the entry into force of the law, claiming that their
right of ownership of movable and immovable properties were infringed,
could apply to the Commission. The Law also provided for a right to
appeal to “TRNC” High Administrative Court and, subsequently, to
the Court.

26. In this connection, the Government noted that
the applicant had rejected the Commission's invitation to consider her
claims. In view of this, the Commission had proceeded to examine ex officio
the applicant's claims. In its opinion the Commission concluded that,
judging on an equitable basis, the pecuniary damages to be awarded to
the applicant amounted to CYP 466,289. This amount included CYP 246,289
for loss of use and CYP 220,000 in respect of the value of the applicant's
share in the property. In reaching these amounts the Commission took
into consideration the interest rates of the Central Bank of Cyprus
between 1974 and 2005 and assessed the annual income that the properties
would have yielded on the basis of the valuation method adopted by the
applicant. The value of the share in the relevant properties was calculated
by applying interest rates on the market value of the properties in
1974 for the period 1 January 1990 until 1 December 2005. The Commission
estimated that in August 1974 the market value of the applicant's share
in the first property was CYP 8,872 and in the second property CYP 10,072.
Furthermore a residents' tax of 10% was added onto the interest. Moreover,
in its opinion the Commission stated that, as regards compensation for
loss of use, it had collected data from the Land Registry and Surveys
Department on the 1973-74 purchase prices for comparable properties
in Famagusta.

27. In the alternative, the Commission noted that
it would be entitled to take a decision to restore the property in question
which would take effect after the settlement of the Cyprus problem and
that this implied that, as from the date of the announced decision of
the Commission on restitution, no construction would be permitted on
the immovable property that would be restored after the settlement of
the Cyprus problem. Such property could not be improved, purchased or
sold. As a last alternative, the Commission proposed to offer the applicant
a Turkish-Cypriot property located in the south of the buffer zone of
equal value to her property. The Government considered that the proposals
made by the Commission concerning the applicant's property claims constituted
an effective redress in line with the principal judgment.

28. With regard to the new remedy, the Government
also noted that the new Law provided for restitution of properties within
the ambit of Article 159 (1) (b) of the “TRNC Constitution”, in addition
to the means of redress provided by the previous law. The Law provided
three alternative solutions, restitution of the immovable property being
one of them. In particular, under the above section, restitution was
possible where firstly, the ownership or use of the property has not
been transferred to any real person or to any legal person other than
the State; secondly, the restitution of such property, having regard
to the location and the physical condition of the property, shall not
endanger national security and public order; thirdly, such property
is not taken for public interest reasons; and finally, that the immovable
property is outside the military areas or military installations. In
cases where restitution could not be provided, the decision for restitution
could be implemented after the settlement of the Cyprus issue. The Law
set out certain rules in this respect. Furthermore, should restitution
not be possible under the terms of the Law, neither immediately nor
after the settlement of the Cyprus issue, other forms of redress such
as exchange or compensation may be offered to an applicant.

29. Furthermore, the Turkish Government submitted
that under “Law no. 67/2005” compensation was available for non-pecuniary
damages in respect of the loss of enjoyment of the right to respect
for home, for loss of use and further, in respect of movable properties
which belonged to applicants before 13 February 1975 and had to be abandoned
for reasons beyond their control.

30. Finally, in accordance with “Law no. 67/2005”,
any person, directly or indirectly, deriving any benefit from the immovable
properties on which rights were claimed by those who had to move from
northern Cyprus in 1974, could not be appointed as members of the Commission.
The Government submitted that the Commission had two “international”
members and, further, that the Turkish-Cypriot members of the Commission
had provided signed and sworn statements with regard to a possible conflict
of interest.

(c) The Cypriot Government

31. The Cypriot Government made lengthy observations
similar to those of the applicant, contesting the lawfulness of the
proposed remedy in view of the Court's jurisprudence and, in the alternative,
the effectiveness and adequacy of the remedy. They raised certain additional
points with regard to the latter. Amongst other things, they pointed
out that the effect of Article 159 (1) (b) of the “TRNC” Constitution
was to vest in the “TRNC” by amending entries in the Land Registry
Records, the title to all immovable property referred to in that part
of the article. And 159 (2) permitted the transfer of this property
to “physical and legal” persons. Such purported transfers had been
and were still being carried out by the illegal sale of Greek-Cypriot
property by Turkish/“TRNC” citizens to tourists and other foreign
nationals.

32. The Cypriot Government stressed that the Law
permitted only a very limited range of claims to be brought before the
applicant and restricted the scope of applicants that could have recourse
to it; the criteria according to which compensation was to be awarded
were unfairly and unduly limited and were not based on the principles
set out by the Court in its judgments in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50) (judgment of 29 July 1998, Reports
1998-I) nor on international valuation standards. In this connection,
they argued that there were inadequacies and ambiguities in the calculation
of compensation, the manner of valuation of properties and concerning
the exchange of properties. The provisions of the Law ignored the practical
reality of the position of Greek-Cypriot property owners who had to
flee in 1974 and did not have the time or the chance to collect all
their documents.

33. They noted that the Law expressly prohibited
the pursuit of rights of ownership upon receipt of exchange/compensation
under no condition and that it treated Greek-Cypriot owners less favourably
than “TRNC” citizens on the basis of Article 36 of the “TRNC Constitution”,
contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, whilst Greek Cypriots living
in enclaves in the Karpas peninsula and the Kyrenia district who had
to abandon their property after 13 February 1975, were excluded from
lodging claims.

34. The Cypriot Government challenged the impartiality
of the Commission. In this respect, they noted, inter alia, the restrictions on the appointment of the members
of the Commission, its composition and the fact that close relatives
of some of the members of the Commission lived in houses owned by or
built on property owned by Greek Cypriots. In this connection, they
also alleged that three members of the “High Administrative Court”
of the “TRNC”, to which appeals could be lodged against decisions
of the Commission were benefiting from Greek-Cypriot owned properties.
The Cypriot Government provided documentation that included, inter alia, details from “TRNC” telephone directories,
title deeds, maps and photographs in support of their arguments. Furthermore,
they noted that any independent or impartial influence of the two foreign
members of the Commission would be negated by the fact that the Commission
reached its decision by a simple majority of a quorum of two-thirds
of the total number of members.

35. Finally, they questioned the Turkish Government's
observations concerning the applications pending or dealt with by the
Commission, in particular those in which it is claimed that restitution
had been allegedly offered. The Cypriot Government claims that the Commission
failed to award the applicants in these applications any damages for
loss of use of their properties.

2. The Court's assessment

36. The Court recalls that in its principal judgment
it held that there had been a continuing violation of the applicant's
rights guaranteed by Articles 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 by reason of the complete denial of the rights of the applicant
with respect to her home and the peaceful enjoyment of her property
in northern Cyprus (§§ 22 and 32 of the principal judgment). It further
held that the applicant was still the legal owner in part of two properties
situated in the area of Famagusta (§ 28 of the principal judgment)
and that its finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was
based on the fact that, as a consequence of being continuously denied
access to her land, she had effectively lost control as well as the
possibility to use and enjoy her property (§ 32 of the principal judgment).

37. The Court welcomes the steps taken by the
Government in an effort to provide redress for the violations of the
applicant's Convention rights as well in respect of all similar applications
pending before it. The Court notes that the new compensation and restitution
mechanism, in principle, has taken care of the requirements of the decision
of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and the judgment on the
merits of 22 December 2005. The Court points out that the parties failed
to reach an agreement on the issue of just satisfaction where, like
in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement and just satisfaction)
([GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2005-...), it would have been possible for the
Court to address all the relevant issues of the effectiveness of this
remedy in detail. The Court cannot accept the Government's argument
that the applicant should now be required at this stage of the proceedings
where the Court has already decided on the merits to apply to the new
Commission in order to seek reparation for her damages (Doğan and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction), nos. 8803-8811/02,
8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 50, 13 July 2006).

38. The Court will therefore proceed to determine
the compensation the applicant is entitled to in respect of losses emanating
from the denial of access and loss of control, use, and enjoyment of
her property between 22 January 1990, the date of Turkey's acceptance
of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, and the present time (Loizidou
(Article 50), judgment of 29 July 1998, cited above, p. 1817, § 31).

39. It is true that the applicant's claim goes
back to 28 January 1987. However, the Court notes that the relevant
date for the determination of the Court's jurisdiction commenced on
22 January 1990 and refers to its findings on the jurisdiction and the
temporal competence of the Commission and the Court in the case of Loizidou
((preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310,
p. 33, § 102, and (merits) judgment of 18 December 1996, cited above, p.
2227, § 32).

40. The Court observes that there is a considerable
difference between the applicant's claims and the amount offered by
the Government. Furthermore, it notes that the valuations furnished
by the parties involve a significant degree of speculation due to the
absence of real data with which to make a comparison and make insufficient
allowance for the volatility of the property market and its susceptibility
to influences both domestic and international (Loizidou (Article 50), cited above, p. 1817, § 31).

41. Accordingly, in assessing the pecuniary damage
sustained by the applicant, the Court has, as far as appropriate, considered
the estimates provided by the parties. Furthermore, the Court has taken
into account the uncertainties, inherent in any attempt to quantify
the real losses incurred by the applicant (see Loizidou (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995,
cited above, p. 33, § 102, and (merits), judgment of 18 December 1996,
cited above, p. 2227, § 32). It has also noted that the applicant has
adopted lower percentage increases than Mrs Loizidou concerning the
market value of the property and with regard to one of the properties
concerning the rent but has made an additional claim in the form of
annual compound interest in respect of the loss because of the delay
in the payment of the sums due. In addition, the Court has taken note
of the estimates put forward by the Turkish Government and the fact
that, in its opinion, the Commission adopted the valuation method used
by the applicant in assessing the annual income the properties would
have yielded.

42. Having regard to the above considerations,
and in the absence of an agreement between the parties, the Court, making
its assessment on an equitable basis and formally in accordance with
the Commission's proposal, awards the applicant EUR 800,000 under this
head.

B. Non-pecuniary damage

1. The parties' submissions

(a) The applicant

43. The applicant claimed CYP 180,000 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage. In particular, she firstly claimed CYP 45,000
for the anguish and frustration she had suffered on account of the continuing
violation of her property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 from
January 1987 until the end of 2006. The applicant stated that this sum
was calculated on the basis of the sum awarded by the Court in the Loizidou
case (Article 50), judgment of 28 July 1998, cited above) by way of
compensation for non-pecuniary damage, taking into account, however,
that the period of time for which the award was claimed in the instant
case, was longer than that claimed in the Loizidou case. Further, she claimed CYP 135,000 for the distress
and suffering resulting from the denial of her home and in view of the
deliberate policy of the Government, who through the use of, inter alia, their army were holding the fenced-up city of Famagusta
hostage to their political wishes. She considered this to be more serious
than the violation of her property rights under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1.

44. Lastly, the applicant considered that the
Government should pay her the symbolic amount of CYP 1 per hour, that
is, CYP 24 per day from 21 June 2006 until the restoration of her rights
for the purpose of encouraging the respondent Government to abide by
the Court's judgment and to ensure that the applicant would not be penalised
for the lack of restoration of her rights. The applicant argued that
she had come up with this amount on an equitable basis and taking into
account the unnecessary continuation of the violation and the consequent
detrimental effect on her as well as the benefit that the respondent
Government was deriving from the adjournment of all similar cases.

(b) The Government

45. The Government noted that the Commission in
its valuation report had found that in the absence of observations by
the applicant it was not in a position to make an assessment in respect
of non-pecuniary damage.

(c) The Cypriot Government

46. The Cypriot Government did not express an
opinion on the matter.

2. The Court's assessment

47. The Court is of the opinion that an award
should be made under this head in respect of the anguish and feelings
of helplessness and frustration which the applicant must have experienced
over the years in not being able to use her property as she saw fit
and to enjoy her home. Making an equitable assessment, the Court awards
the applicant EUR 50,000 under this head.

C. Costs and expenses

1. The parties' submissions

(a) The applicant

48. The applicant, who had submitted bills of
costs containing an itemised breakdown of the work, claimed CYP 26,576.55,
plus value-added tax, for costs and expenses incurred following the
adoption of the “principal judgment”. Her claim was composed of
the following items:

(a) CYP 7,250, for the fees of a Queen's Counsel,
Mr I. Brownlie, CBE, QC, which included instructions, comments and advice
on matters of international law for the preparation of the applicant's
additional observations;

(b) CYP 17,200, plus value-added tax, for the
fees of the applicant's lawyer covering advice given on the question
of referral to the Grand Chamber, the preparation of the observations
on just satisfaction and meetings. The above amounts were claimed in
respect of a total of 127 hours work on the part of her representative;

(c) CYP 2,126.55, plus value-added tax, for the
fees of the updated valuation reports, which amounted to CYP 100, and
out of pocket expenses incurred from December 2005 until May 2006. The
latter included mainly communication costs (faxes, telephone bills,
mail) as well as the air fare, accommodation and expenses for a trip
by the applicant's lawyer to Strasbourg from 5 until 6 December 2005.

(b) The Government

49. The Government did not express an opinion
on the matter.

(c) The Cypriot Government

50. The Cypriot Government did not express an
opinion on the matter.

2. The Court's assessment

51. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant
is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far
as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred
and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Iatridis
v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54,
ECHR 2000-XI).

52. The Court notes that it is clear from the
length and detail of the pleadings submitted by the applicant that a
considerable amount of work was carried out on her behalf. These pleadings
included the applicant's comments concerning the new remedy proposed
by the Government, a matter which did not form part of the parties'
previous submissions before the Chamber. The costs associated with the
preparation of these pleadings and with producing updated valuation
reports in view of the continuing nature of the violations at stake
were essential for enabling the Court to reach its decision regarding
the issue of just satisfaction.

53. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the
sum total claimed in fees is excessive. In this connection, it notes
that in view of the fact that the case was not referred to the Grand
Chamber nothing should be accorded to the applicant in this respect.
It further notes that the applicant has not shown that the costs associated
with her representative's journey to Strasbourg in December 2005 were
incurred in connection with the case.

54. Accordingly, regard being had to the information
in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable
to award the sum of EUR 35,000 to cover all the applicant's costs and
expenses.

C. Default interest

55. The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds

(a) that the respondent
State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following comprehensive sums, to be converted
into Cypriot pounds at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal
lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period
plus three percentage points;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing
on 7 December 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress
Registrar President

1
In its composition before 1 November 2004.

2
In its composition before 1 November 2004.

3
Law no. 49/2003 entered into force on 30 June 2003.

4
Former Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights and former
Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.